Suram Venkateshwara Reddy, Hyderabad V. Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2, Hyderabad

ITA 1222/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2212 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 26-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 20-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D SRINIVAS
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Search and seizure; Source of fund; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 153A; 234B; 131; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225 & 1226/HYD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-0 6 & 2006-07 SURAM VENKATESHWARA REDDY, HYDERABAD. PAN AHUPS5707P VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S. RAMA RAO REVENUE BY : SHRI D. SRINIVAS DATE OF HEARING 13-10-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 29-12-2017 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: ALL THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECT ED AGAINST A COMMON ORDER OF CIT(A) I, HYDERABAD, DATED 27/03/ 2014 FOR THE AYS 2002-03 TO 2006-07. AS IDENTICAL ISSUES ARE INV OLVED IN THESE APPEALS, THEY WERE CLUBBED AND HEARD TOGETHER AND T HEREFORE A COMMON ORDER IS PASSED FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESS EE WHO IS THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF M/S. DHATRI CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. ON 9-10-2007 AT HIS RESIDENCE. CONSEQUENT TO SEARCH OPERATION, N OTICE U/S.153A WAS ISSUED FOR ASST. YEARS 2002-03 TO 2007-08, IN R ESPONSE TO WHICH, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME EVE N THOUGH HE HAS GIVEN TOTAL DISCLOSURE OF RS.9,90,05,000/- FOR ASST . YEARS 2003-04 TO 2008-09 DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPE RATION ON 2 ITA NOS. 1222 TO 1226/HYD/2014 SURAM VENKATESHWARA REDDY ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME EARNED BY HIM. THE AS SESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASST. YEAR 2002-03 TO 2004 -05 ON 7-10-2009 AND FOR ASST. YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07 ON 13-10-20 09 WITHOUT ADMITTING ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME. AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH, I.E., 9- 10-2007, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ONLY RETURN OF INCO ME UP TO 2005-06 AND THE INCOME ADMITTED BY HIM PRIOR TO SEARCH AND INCOME ADMITTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AFTER SEARCH ARE AS UNDER: AY INCOME ADMITTED IN THE REGULAR RETURN INCOME ADMITTED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153A 2002-03 62,150 62,150 2003-04 1,71,350 2,92,003 2004-05 2,83,272 2,16,076 2005-06 3,67,705 4,40,371 2006-07 NOT FILED 9,74,768 2.1 FURTHER, IN RESPONSE TO THE FINAL SHOW CAUSE DT .30-9-2009 AND 30-10-2009, ASSESSEE HAS REPLIED THAT ALL THE UNDIS CLOSED INCOME THAT WAS DECLARED BEFORE DDIT(INV.) WAS DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE COMPANY IN WHICH ASSESSEE IS THE DI RECTOR AND HE HAS ALSO FILED A DETAILED CASH FLOW ALONG WITH CAPI TAL ACCOUNT ON 18/12/2009. HOWEVER, HE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DOCUM ENTARY EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF CASH FLOW STATEMENT & CAPIT AL ACCOUNT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, THE AO HAD COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENTS FOR AYS 2002-03 TO 2008-09 ON 31/12/2009 BY MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS. 2.2 WHEN THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED MOST OF THE ADDITIONS AND GAVE PAR TIAL RELIEF. 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED GROUNDS RELAT ING TO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES, ADDITION OF DEPOSITS IN B ANK U/S 68, CREDITS OF COLLECTION ON BEHALF OF RADHA REALTORS AND INTER EST U/S 234 A & 3 ITA NOS. 1222 TO 1226/HYD/2014 SURAM VENKATESHWARA REDDY 234B OF THE ACT. ALL THE ABOVE ISSUES ARE DEALT TOG ETHER ISSUE-WISE AS UNDER: I. DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE: 5. A COMMON GROUND RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPE NDITURE IS RAISED IN ALL THE APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION, WHIC H IS AS UNDER: THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING ONLY 50% OF THE EXPEND ITURE INCURRED AGAINST COMMISSION RECEIPT. THE CIT(A) OUG HT TO HAVE SEEN THAT THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED IS FOR THE PURPOS E OF AND IN CONNECTION WITH THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT. 5.1 THE FACTS RELEVANT FOR THIS GROUND ARE EXTRAC TED FROM AY 2002- 03.THE ASSESSEE WAS IN RECEIPT OF AN AMOUNT OF RS. 3,15,000/- AS COMMISSION, AGAINST WHICH, HE CLAIMED AN EXPENDITUR E OF RS. 1,66,723/-. SINCE HE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY SUPPORT ING DOCUMENT, THE AO DISALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED. 5.2 BEFORE THE CIT(A), HE SUBMITTED THAT HE CLAIMED ONLY NOMINAL EXPENDITURE. THE CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANC E TO 50% OF THE CLAIM IN ALL THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION BY OBSER VING AS UNDER: 06.0 AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT, THE APPELLANT DID N OT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITUR E ON ACCOUNT OF TELEPHONE CHARGES, 'VEHICLES MAINTENANCE AND OTH ER EXPENSES. EVEN THOUGH THE APPELLANT RAISED THE GROU ND WHEN THE MATTER WAS REMANDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FO R VERIFICATION, HE HAS NOT FILED ANY DETAILS WHATSOEV ER. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT IN THE SUBMISSIONS FILED THAT THE APPE LLANT MADE AN ALTERNATE PLEA THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF ENTIRE EXPE NDITURE IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED AT LEAST REASONABLE EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT DERIVED COMMISSION INCOME, AND I T CANNOT BE DENIED THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME EXPENDITURE INCURRE D BY HIM TO EARN THE COMMISSION AND SINCE THE APPELLANT' COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE OF INCURRING OF THE EXPENDITURE~ DISAL LOWANCE, OF SOME EXPENDITURE IS WARRANTED. CONSIDERING THE NATU RE OF BUSINESS AND THE AMOUNT OF INCOME SHOWN, THE EXPEND ITURE CLAIM D APPEARS EXCESSIVE. EVEN IN THE REPLY TO THE REMAND REPORT ALSO, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT GIVEN ANY DETAIL S WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCES. HE SIMPLY STATED THAT AGAINST THE COMMISSION RECEIVED, HE CLAIMED ONLY NOMINAL EXPEND ITURE AND WHEN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE NOT MAINTAINED AND THE I NFORMATION 4 ITA NOS. 1222 TO 1226/HYD/2014 SURAM VENKATESHWARA REDDY IS NOT AVAILABLE, THE ONLY METHOD OF ARRIVING AT TH E INCOME IS BY RESORTING, TO ESTIMATION OF INCOME. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, DISALLOWANCE OF 50% OF THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED TO H AVE BEEN' INCURRED FOR EARNING COMMISSION INCOME IS REASONABL E AND ACCORDINGLY, THE DISALLOWANCE IS RESTRICTED TO 50% OF THE CLAIM FOR ASST.YEARS 2002-03 TO 2006-07. 5.3 AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5.4 BEFORE US, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IS TOWARDS SALARIES, OFFICE MA INTENANCE, MAINTENANCE OF VEHICLE AND TELECOMMUNICATION EXPENS ES. FURTHER, HE SUBMITTED THAT AS THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE OF RS. 1,6 6,723/- IS RELATABLE TO THE COMMISSION INCOME FROM REAL ESTATE, THE SAME IS ALLOWABLE. 5.5 THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE ORD ERS OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 5.6 CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL FACTS ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE AO HAS NOT DISPU TED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DERIVED COMMISSION INCOME, AND IT CANN OT BE DENIED THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY AS SESSEE TO EARN THE COMMISSION AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRO DUCE ANY EVIDENCE OF INCURRING OF THE EXPENDITURE, DISALLOWA NCE OF SOME EXPENDITURE IS WARRANTED. THEREFORE, TO MEET THE EN DS OF JUSTICE, WE RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE TO 20% AS AGAINST 50% SUS TAINED BY THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTL Y ALLOWED IN ALL THE APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION. II. ADDITION IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNTS COLLECTED ON BEHALF OF RADHA REALTY AND PAYMENT TO RADHA REALTY IN AYS 2003-04 T O 2006-07. 6. THE FACTS AS TAKEN FROM AY 2002-03 ARE THAT THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN RS. 2,50,000/- AS AMOUN T DUE TO RADHA REALTORS PVT. LTD. AND RS. 22,72,325/- AS RADHA RE ALTORS (CUSTOMERS) AS LIABILITIES AND WHEN QUESTIONED, THE ASSESSEE COULD 5 ITA NOS. 1222 TO 1226/HYD/2014 SURAM VENKATESHWARA REDDY NOT EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF LIABILITY AND ACCORDINGLY , THE AO TREATED THE ENTIRE SUM OF RS. 25,22,325/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH C REDIT. 6.1 BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 22,72,325/- WAS COLLECTED FROM THE CUSTOMERS OF M/S RADHA REALTY AND THE SAME WAS OUTSTANDING AS ON 31/03/200 3 AND FILED A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22/12/2009 FROM M/S RADHA REALTY GIVING YEAR-WISE DETAILS OF AMOUNTS COLLECTED, BALANCE DUE TO THE COMPANY AND THE COMMISSION PAID. WHEN THE MATTER REMANDED T O THE AO, THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH THE DE TAILS/DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE REGARDING THE PARTIES/CUSTOMERS FROM WHOM COLLECTION WAS MADE, CONFIRMATION OF THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES, SUPPO RTING RECEIPTS, DETAILS OF PLOTS AGAINST WHICH ADVANCES WERE RECEIV ED, MORE IMPORTANTLY ANY AGREEMENT WITH M/S RADHA REALTY ETC . TO PROVE HIS CLAIM. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT FROM THE SAID LETTER D ATE 22/12/2009, WHICH GAVE YEAR-WISE DETAILS OF THE AMOUNTS COLLECT ED BY ASSESSEE AND SUBSEQUENT REPAYMENTS MADE TO THE COMPANY, ACCO RDING TO WHICH, THE ASSESSEE COLLECTED A SUM OF RS. 1,36,24, 348/- DURING FINANCIAL YEARS 2002-03 TO 2005-06 OF WHICH RS. 8,0 0,000/- WAS PAID BACK TO THE COMPANY AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 1 ,28,24,348/- WERE SHOWN AS OUTSTANDING AND NO REASONS AS TO WHY SUCH HUGE AMOUNTS ALLEGEDLY STATED TO BE COLLECTED FROM THE C USTOMERS OF M/S RADHA REALTY WERE REMAINED WITH HIM AND NOT PAID BA CK TO THE COMPANY. 6.2 IN REPLY TO THE REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSEE STA TED THAT HE COLLECTED ADVANCES FROM CUSTOMERS ON BEHALF OF RADH A REALTORS AND DID NOT REPAY THE AMOUNT AND THE SAID FACT WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE SAID COMPANY AND IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE AMO UNT COLLECTED AND RETAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ADJUSTED BY RADHA REALTORS PVT. LTD, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RETAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER BEING COLLECTED, OBVIOUSLY, SUCH RETENTION OF MONEY IS NOT ADJUSTED BY THE COMPANY AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES TH E AMOUNT 6 ITA NOS. 1222 TO 1226/HYD/2014 SURAM VENKATESHWARA REDDY RETAINED WITH THE ASSESSEE FROM OUT OF THE ADVANCES RECEIVED CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 6.3 AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESS EE AND REMAND REPORT OF THE AO, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT IT IS PE RTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE ALLEGED AMOUNT OF RS. 22,72,325/- WHICH WAS CLA IMED TO HAVE BEEN COLLECTED ON BEHALF OF M/S RADHA REALTY IN THE FY 2002-03 REMAINED OUTSTANDING IN THE ASSESSEES BALANCE SHEE T TILL FY 2005-06 AND THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT GIVE ANY PLAUSIBLE EXPLA NATION FOR THE SAME. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IT IS ALSO NOT EXPLA INED AS TO WHEN THESE AMOUNTS WERE ULTIMATELY PAID TO RADHA REALTOR S, IF THE SAME WERE COLLECTED ON BEHALF OF THE SAID COMPANY. IN VI EW OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 22,7 2,325/-. SIMILAR ADDITIONS WERE MADE IN AY 2004-05 TO 2006-07, WHICH ARE TABULATED AS UNDER: AY ADDITION MADE BY AO CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET (GR. NO.4) 2003-04 22,72,325 22,72,325 -DO- (GROUND NO. 3) 2004-05 21,55,119 21,55,119 -DO- (GROUND NO. 3) 2005-06 23,64,410 23,64,119 -DO- (GROUND NO. 3) 2006-07 68,32,494 68,32,494 6.4 LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSES SEE WORKS FOR RADHA REALTORS ON COMMISSION BASIS AND THE AMOUNT R ECEIVED FROM ITS CUSTOMERS WAS DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID COMPANY CONFIRMED THE FACT THAT SUCH AMOUN T IS PAYABLE TO THEM BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME IS CAPITAL RECEIP T, WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY RADHA REALTORS. 6.5 LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 7 ITA NOS. 1222 TO 1226/HYD/2014 SURAM VENKATESHWARA REDDY 6.6 CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL FACTS ON RECORD. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AT LENGTH , BENCH FELT THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO CALL FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO O N 31/08/2017 ON THE CASH CREDITS INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT AND ALSO THE ADVANCES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE CUSTOMERS OF RADH A REALTORS, WHICH ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, ARE COLLECTED ON B EHALF OF RADHA REALTORS. ACCORDINGLY, AO SUBMITTED HIS REPORT ON 2 5/09/2017. BASED ON THE DIRECTION, AO HAS ISSUED SUMMONS U/S 131 OF THE ACT TO PRINCIPAL OFFICER M/S RADHA REALTORS ON 08/09/2017 REQUIRING THEM TO APPEAR AND PRODUCE THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS: 1. DETAILS OF PAYMENT MADE OR AMOUNTS RECEIVED, IF ANY, FROM SRI SURAM VENKATESWARA REDDY. 2. COMPLETE DETAILS OF TRANSACTION WITH SRI SURAM V ENKATESWARA REDDY FOR FY 2001-02 TO 2007-08. 3. RELEVANT LEDGER EXTRACTS IN RESPECT OF ABOVE TRA NSACTIONS RELEVANT TO AY 2002-03 TO 2008-09. 4. COPIES OF BALANCE SHEETS FOR THE YEARS ENDING FO R THE ABOVE PERIOD EVIDENCING THE ABOVE TRANSACTIONS. 5. THE COPIES OF ITR ALONG WITH COMPUTATION OF INCO ME FOR RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 6.7 MR. N. RAVINDRANATH REDDY, M.D, AT THAT POINT O F TIME, IN WHICH, THESE TRANSACTIONS WERE CARRIED ON, APPEARED BEFORE AO ON 22/09/2017 AND FURNISHED THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS: 1. LEDGER A/C COPY OF THE ASSESSEE (SHRI S.V. REDDY ) FOR THE FY 2005-06 & 2006-07 RELEVANT TO AY 2006-07 & 2007-08 (NOT RELEVANT TO PRESENT PROCEEDINGS). 2. ITR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS OF RRCPL FOR THE AYS 2002-0 3 TO 2008-09. 3. ANNUAL ACCOUNTS CONTAINING BALANCE SHEET OF RRCP L FOR THE FYS 2005-06 TO 2007-08. 4. SUNDRY CREDITORS LEDGER ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF RRCPL FOR THE FYS 2006-07 & 2007-08 DEPICTING THE BALANCES OF ASSESSEE (SHRI S.V. REDDY). 8 ITA NOS. 1222 TO 1226/HYD/2014 SURAM VENKATESHWARA REDDY 6.8 FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT RA DHA REALTORS HAS NOT SUBMITTED LEDGER COPIES OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FYS 2001-02 TO 2004-05 RELEVANT TO AYS 2002-03 TO 2005-06. ON CARE FUL READING OF THE REMAND REPORT, AO BASICALLY CONTESTED THAT RADH A REALTORS HAS NOT PRODUCED YEAR-WISE LEDGER ACCOUNT COPIES OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS STATING THAT THEY ARE NOT AVAILABLE. THEY COU LD ONLY PRODUCE LEDGER EXTRACTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AY 2006-07 WHEREIN THERE IS AN OPENING BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD FOR RS. 68,32,49 4/-. SHRI N. RAVINDRANATH REDDY IN HIS STATEMENT CLEARLY STATED THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE YEAR-WISE BREAK UP FOR THIS PERIOD. ACCORDINGL Y, AO HAS JUSTIFIED THAT ADDITIONS MADE DURING THESE AYS 2002-03 TO 200 5-06. WHEN IT COMES TO AY 2006-07, HE HAS STATED THAT SHRI N. RAV INDRANATH REDDY HAS SUBMITTED LEDGER EXTRACT OF FY 2005-06 RELEVANT TO AY 2006-07, AS PER WHICH, THERE IS ONLY OPENING BALANCE OF RS. 68,32,494/-, WHEREAS, IN THE STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE , THE OPENING BALANCE STANDS AT RS. 59,91,854/-. AT THE SAME TIME , ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT HE HAS COLLECTED RS. 68,32,494/- FOR T HE CURRENT AY, WHEREAS, THERE IS NO CORRESPONDING CONFIRMATION FRO M RADHA REALTORS. FURTHER, HE SUBMITTED THAT RADHA REALTORS HAS GIVEN ADVANCES TO THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1,25, 05,000/- AND RETURNED RS. 5 LAKHS. FROM THE RECORD, IT IS CLEAR THAT WITH REGARD TO ADVANCES, ASSESSEE AND RADHA REALTORS CONFIRMED THA T THERE IS OUTSTANDING OF RS. 1,20,05,000/-, BUT, THERE IS NO CONFIRMATION WITH REGARD TO RS. 68,32,494/-. THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT T HERE IS MISMATCH OF THE INFORMATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDI NGLY, HE JUSTIFIED THAT ADDITION MADE DURING THE YEAR IS PROPER. HE FU RTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN QUESTION NO. 14 OF THE SWORN STATEMENT RECO RDED FROM SHRI N. RAVINDRANATH REDDY, IT WAS ASKED TO CONFIRM THE CLO SING BALANCE AS ON 31/03/2006 RELEVANT TO AY 2006-07 THAT THE BALAN CE OUTSTANDING IN RADHA REALTORS WAS SHOWN AT RS. 1,88,37,494/-, WHER EAS, THE CLOSING BALANCE AS PER THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOWN AT RS. 2,48,29,348/-, FOR WHICH, SHRI N. RAVINDRANATH REDDY HAS CONFIRMED THAT HE IS NOT AWARE AS TO HOW ASSESSEE HAS 9 ITA NOS. 1222 TO 1226/HYD/2014 SURAM VENKATESHWARA REDDY PRESENTED HIS ACCOUNTS, HOWEVER, HE CONFIRMED THE C LOSING BALANCE AS PER HIS BOOKS. 7. CONSIDERED THE ABOVE REMAND REPORT FROM AO AND O THER MATERIAL FACTS ON RECORD. IT IS CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE WAS WORKING FOR RADHA REALTORS ON COMMISSION BASIS AND THE SAME WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY SHRI N. RAVINDRANATH REDDY IN HIS SWOR N STATEMENT. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE WAS COLLECTING FUNDS ON BEHALF OF RADHA REALTORS AND THE SAME WAS RETAINED BY HIM FOR THE REASONS KNOWN TO THE ASSESSEE AND RADHA REALTORS. A SSESSEE WAS COLLECTING ADVANCES FROM AY 2003-04, AS PER THE BEL OW STATEMENT: RS. 2003-04 22,72,325 2004-05 21,55,119 2005-06 23,64,410 2006-07 68,32,494 7.1 WE HAVE NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE COLLECTED THE FUN DS FROM THE CREDITORS OF RADHA REALTORS EVERY YEAR AND RETAINE D WITH HIM, HENCE, THE FUNDS COLLECTED IN AY 2003-04 WAS RS. 22,72,325 /-, WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY THE AO. AGAIN SIMILAR ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY THE AO FOR AYS 2004-05 & 2005-06. THE AGGREGATE OF THESE A DDITIONS ARE RS. 67,91,854/-. IN THE AY 2006-07, ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN IN HIS CASH FLOW STATEMENT THAT HE HAS ALSO COLLECTED RS. 68,32,494/ - DURING THIS AY AND ALSO BROUGHT FORWARD RS. 59,91,854/- FROM THE P REVIOUS AYS. SINCE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS COLLECTED RS. 68,32,494/- DURING THE AY 2006-07, THE ADDITION WAS MADE FOR AY 2006-07 ALSO. HOWEVER, WE NOTICE THAT M.D. OF RADHA REALTORS HAS CONFIRMED ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 68,32,494/- AS OPENING BALANCE , WHICH WAS CARRIED FORWARD FROM EARLIER YEARS. SINCE THEY DO N OT HAVE COPY OF LEDGER EXTRACTS FOR THE PREVIOUS YEARS AND SINCE MD HAS CONFIRMED THE OPENING BALANCES, WE ARE INCLINED TO DELETE THE ADDITION FOR THE AYS 2003-04 TO 2005-06. SINCE RADHA REALTORS HAS NO T CONFIRMED THE COLLECTION FOR AY 2006-07, THE SAME HAS TO BE ANALY SED FOR THE 10 ITA NOS. 1222 TO 1226/HYD/2014 SURAM VENKATESHWARA REDDY PURPOSE OF CONFIRMING ADDITION. IN OUR CONSIDERED V IEW, THIS ADDITION WAS MADE BY RELYING ON CASH FLOW, WHICH WAS SUBMITT ED BY THE ASSESSEE. CAN THIS BE CONSIDERED AS UNDISCLOSED INC OME. IN OUR VIEW, THE RELEVANCE FOR MAKING ADDITION IN THE REAL INCOM E. WE NOTICE THAT IN AY 2006-07, AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION FOR CREDITS IN THE BANK AND ALSO THE ADMISSION OF COLLECTION ON BEHALF OF RADHA REALTORS. SINCE, THE ADVANCES COLLECTED ON BEHALF OF RADHA REALTORS WERE NOT CONFIRMED BY THE RADHA REALTORS, THIS DISCLOSURE IS NOT SUBSTANTIATED. CAN IT BE ADDED AS INCOME. THE INCOME HAS TO BE REA L INCOME I.E. THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE MADE THE INVESTMENT OR DEPOSIT ED IN BANK. IN THIS AY, ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT. WE WILL DEAL WITH THIS IN NEXT PARA ON BANK DEPOSITS. MOREOVER, LD. C IT(A) HAS ALSO ALLOWED THE GROUND ON THIS ISSUE. 7.2 WE HAVE DELETED THE ABOVE ADDITIONS IN AYS 2003 -04 TO 2005- 06 BASED ON THE FACTS THAT ASSESSEE HAS PROVED IDEN TITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION CONSIDERING THE CONFIRMATION FROM RADHA REALTORS REPRESENTED BY ITS MD AND THERE IS A DIRECT LINK OF COLLECTION FROM THE CUSTOMERS OF R ADHA REALTORS AND ALSO DEPOSITS IN THE BANK FOR THE EARLIER AYS. HOWE VER, FOR THE AY 2006-07, RADHA REALTORS HAS NOT CONFIRMED ANY TRANS ACTION DONE FOR THIS YEAR, BUT, THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED TO HAVE C OLLECTED ON BEHALF OF RADHA REALTORS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 68,32,494/-, WHEREAS, THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED RS. 80,31,593/- IN THE BANK. SINCE RADHA REALTORS HAS NOT CONFIRMED THIS TRANSACTION, WE ARE INCLINED TO CONFIRM ONE OF THE ADDITIONS I.E. BANK DEPOSIT TO THE EXTEN T OF RS. 80,31,593/- OR ADVANCE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CASH FLO W STATEMENT. WE CANNOT TREAT BOTH THE AMOUNTS AS INCOME OF THE ASSE SSEE AS IT WILL AMOUNT TO DOUBLE ADDITION. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK, WHICH IS MORE THAN THE ADVANC E DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PA RTLY ALLOWED. III. ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF BANK DEPOSITS IN ALL THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION: 11 ITA NOS. 1222 TO 1226/HYD/2014 SURAM VENKATESHWARA REDDY 8. THE ADDITION MADE IN RESPECT OF BANK DEPOSITS, I N THE ALL THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE AS UNDER: AY ADDITION MADE BY AO CIT(A) ADDITION IN RESPECT OF DEPOSITS IN THE BANK (GR. NO. 3) 2002-03 1,08,500 CONFIRMED (GR. NO. 3) 2003-04 5,77,600 REMITTED THE ISSUE TO AO -DO- (GROUND NO. 4) 2004-05 16,84,000 CONFIRMED TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 14,84,000 -DO- (GROUND NO. 4) 2005-06 47,86,199 DELETED RS. 8,63,200/- AND BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 39,22,299/- REMITTED TO AO FOR VERIFICATION -DO- (GROUND NO. 5) 2006-07 80,31,593 CIT(A) CONFIRMED 8.1 LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE COMMI SSION RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR 2002-03 BY WAY OF CASH WAS RS. 3,15 ,000/- FROM VARIOUS PARTIES AND THE CASH DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCO UNT IS OUT OF SUCH COMMISSION RECEIVED. HE SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE P REVIOUS YEAR, THE TOTAL CREDITS INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT AMOUNTED TO RS. 1,34,116/- AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAINTAIN BOOK OF ACCOUNT. HE THERE FORE SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN H OLDING THAT THE DEPOSITS ARE WITHOUT ANY SOURCE, HENCE, THE ADDITIO N IS NOT WARRANTED. 8.2 LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE NEITHER APPEARED NOR FILED DOCUMENTS TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM BEFORE THE REVE NUE AUTHORITIES. 8.3. CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED T HE MATERIAL FACTS ON RECORD. WITH REGARD TO AYS 2002-03 AND 2003-04, ON CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE ISSUE, IT IS OBSER VED THAT THERE IS DIRECT 12 ITA NOS. 1222 TO 1226/HYD/2014 SURAM VENKATESHWARA REDDY NEXUS BETWEEN THE INCOME EARNED BY WAY OF COMMISSIO N IN CASH AND THE CASH DEPOSITED ARE LESS THAN THE INCOME EARNED DURING THE YEAR. BY GIVING TELESCOPIC BENEFIT, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE CAN BE ACCEPTED. ACCORDINGLY, THESE GROUND ARE ALLOWED. 8.4 FOR THE OTHER AYS 2004-05 & 2005-06, CASH RECEI VED BY THE ASSESSEE ON BEHALF OF M/S RADHA REALTORS AND THE SA ME WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE COMPANY THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COLL ECTED FUNDS ON BEHALF OF THE COMPANY AND RETAINED BY HIM. SINCE, T HERE IS CONFIRMATION FOR THE SOURCE OF FUNDS, THE SAME FUND S WERE USED TO DEPOSIT IN THE BANK. THERE IS DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN THE FUNDS COLLECTION AND DEPOSITS IN THE BANK. HENCE, ASSESSE E ALSO ACCEPTED IN HIS FINANCIAL STATEMENT THAT AS LIABILITY, HE OWES TO M/S RADHA REALTORS. THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND IT S RELEVANCE IS DISCUSSED IN PARA 7.1 SINCE, THE NEXUS IS PROVED F OR THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK AND LIABILITY TO PAY TO M/S RA DHA REALTORS, AO CANNOT MAKE ADDITION U/S 68 FOR THE BANK DEPOSITS A S THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS ARE PROVED. WITH REGARD TO CREDITWORTHI NESS OF THE PARTY, IT IS RADHA REALTORS, ASSESSEE NEED NOT HAVE TO PRO VE THE CREDITWORTHINESS IN THIS CASE. ACCORDINGLY, THESE A DDITIONS ARE DELETED. 8.5 FOR AY 2006-07, WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED IN PA RA 7.2, WE HAVE SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF BANK DEPOSIT. HENCE, NEED NO FURTHER ADJUDICATION. IV. ADVANCES FROM ASSESSEES OWN CUSTOMERS AY 2006-07 9. AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 4 RELATING TO THE ADDITIO N OF RS. 99,46,050/- BEING THE ADVANCE FROM CUSTOMER, THE AO OBSERVED THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE FAI LED TO GIVE ANY DETAILS OF RS. 99,46,050/- ON ACCOUNT OF THE CLAIM OF ADVANCES FROM CUSTOMERS, SUCH AS THE NATURE OF THE ADVANCES, NAME S AND ADDRESS OF THE PERSONS WHO HAVE ADVANCED, MODE OF ACCEPTANC E, DETAILS OF 13 ITA NOS. 1222 TO 1226/HYD/2014 SURAM VENKATESHWARA REDDY PLOTS/LAND AGAINST WHICH THE ADVANCES WERE RECEIVED ETC. THE AO, THEREFORE, TREATED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS. 99,46,0 50/- APPEARING IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 9.1 DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE SUB MITTED THAT THESE AMOUNTS WERE RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS PERSONS FO R PURCHASE OF PROPERTIES AT HYDERABAD ON THEIR BEHALF AS UNDER: SL. NO. NAME OF THE PERSON AMOUNT RECEIVED (RS.) REMARKS 1. S. PULLA REDDY 1,50,000 COPY OF CONFIRMATION LETTER DT. 19/12/2009 FILED 2. BHANU PRASAD 1,50,000 3 GOVIND REDDY 1,00,000 CLAIMED AS REFUNDED ON 31/03/2006 THROUGH ABN AMRO BANK 4 JAYASIMHA 11,66,000 5 M. NAGESH 2,00,000 REFUNDED ON 07/12/05 VIDE CHEQUE NO. 171981 DRAWN ON ICICI BANK 6. M. SRINIVAS KUMAR 5,85,000 COPY OF CONFIRMATION LETTER FILED 7. PRASAD BACHU 9,11,050 COPY OF CONFIRMATION LETTER FILED 8. P. SRIDHAR REDDY 5,84,000 COPY OF CONFIRMATION LETTER FILED 9. SHARATH 36,00,000 A PLOT WAS ALLOTTED FOR RS. 2,50,000/- AND BALANCE REMAINS AS ADVANCE. 10. S. RAJASEKHAR REDDY 20,00,000 THE AMOUNT WAS REFUNDED IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR @ RS. 10 LAKHS EACH ON 181/11/2006 AND ON 12/12/2006. 9.2 THE AO HAD VERIFIED THE DETAILS AND THE CONFIRM ATIONS FILED IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE PERSONS AND OBSERVED THAT THE SO CALLED CONFIRMATIONS OR EVIDENCES FILED WOULD NOT SATISFAC TORILY SUPPORT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. IN REPLY TO THE REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF RE AL ESTATE AND DERIVED COMMISSION INCOME, HE WAS ALSO ENGAGED IN S ELLING OF PLOTS AND THE ADVANCES RECEIVED WERE PART OF THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY CARRIED 14 ITA NOS. 1222 TO 1226/HYD/2014 SURAM VENKATESHWARA REDDY ON BY HIM. HE FURTHER STATED THAT ALL THE PERSONS H AVE CONFIRMED THE FACT THAT THEY INVESTED THE AMOUNTS WITH THE ASSESS EE FOR ACQUISITION OF PLOTS THROUGH HIM WHICH CLEARLY INDICATES THAT T HE AMOUNTS WERE RECEIVED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF TH E ASSESSEE AND PART OF THESE AMOUNTS WERE EITHER REFUNDED TO THE PERSON S THROUGH CHEQUES OR WERE ADJUSTED TOWARDS THE SALE OF PLOTS BY THE COMPANY AND IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AO SHOULD NOT HAVE M ADE ANY ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT. 9.3 AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESS EE AS WELL AS THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED T HE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO U/S 68 OF THE ACT BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 16.2 THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN EXAMINE D IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT. DESPITE THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S CLEAR OBSERVATION THAT THE CONFIRMATIONS FILED WERE EITHE R INCOMPLETE OR DO NOT GIVE THE COMPLETE PICTURE OF THE TRANSACT IONS ENTERED INTO BY THE APPELLANT WITH THEM SUCH AS DETAILS OF THE PLOTS PURCHASED AND REGISTRATION THEREOF ETC., THE APPELL ANT DID NOT REBUT THESE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH ANY EVIDENCES SUBSTANTIATING THAT THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED WERE ACTUA LLY THE BUSINESS PROCEEDS. IN FACT, THE APPELLANT DID NOT G IVE WHETHER THESE CUSTOMERS WERE HIS CUSTOMERS OR THAT OF RADHA REALTY. THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSIONS AND THE REBUTTAL ARE GE NERAL IN NATURE AND DO NOT THROW ANY LIGHT ON THE NATURE OF THESE ADVANCES. EVEN THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BOTHERED TO GI VE THE DETAILS OF THE PLOTS FOR WHICH THE ADVANCES WERE GI VEN AND THE DETAILS OF REGISTRATION THEREOF. IT MAY BE NOTED TH AT CUSTOMERS DO NOT GIVE ADVANCES WITHOUT IDENTIFYING THE PLOTS OF THEIR CHOICE AND EVEN THE CONFIRMATIONS FILED DO NOT SHOW ANY DETAILS OF THE ADDRESS OR THE SOURCES AND THEY ALL STATED T HAT THEY PAID THE AMOUNTS BECAUSE THEY KNOW THE APPELLANT FOR MAN Y YEARS AND REQUESTED HIM TO ARRANGE A SUITABLE PROPERTY. A N ILLUSTRATION OF ONE CONFIRMATION LETTER WHICH IS ALLEGEDLY GIVEN BY SRI S.PULLA REDDY DID NOT HAVE ANY ADDRESS THOUGH HE STATED THA T HE WAS WORKING AS AN OFFICER OF INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK AND T HE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.7,05,000/- WAS PAID IN CASH OVER A PER IOD FROM 19-2-2005 TO 2-5-2007 AS AGAINST THE DETAILS FILED BY THE APPELLANT OF THE ADVANCES, AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,50,000 /- HAS BEEN SHOWN AS RECEIVED FROM SRI S.PULLA REDDY.: EVEN THO UGH THIS PERSON HAS OVER A PERIOD OF TIME PAID RS.7,05,000/- , THERE WAS NO INDICATION OF ALLOTMENT/PURCHASE OF LAND IN THE NAME OF THE PERSON, SRI S.PULLA REDDY. THE APPELLANT FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE 15 ITA NOS. 1222 TO 1226/HYD/2014 SURAM VENKATESHWARA REDDY NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE CREDITS WITH ANY SATISFACT ORY EXPLANATION AND CREDIBLE EVIDENCES. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE CONTENTION THAT THESE WERE ALL THE ADVANCES FROM CU STOMERS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AND THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER OF RS.99,46,050/- U/S.68 OF I.T. ACT IS CON FIRMED. 9.4 BEFORE US, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESS EE RECEIVED ADVANCES FROM CUSTOMERS AND OTHER REALTORS. HE FURT HER SUBMITTED THAT BESIDES, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED ADVANCES FROM T HE PERSONS AS MENTIONED IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS (SUPRA) AND THE Y CONFIRMED THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE PAID ADVANCES TO THE ASSESSEE A ND LETTERS OF CONFIRMATION WERE FILED. HE POINTED OUT THAT NO ADV ERSE FINDINGS WERE BROUGHT ON RECORD. 9.5 THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE ORD ERS OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 9.6 CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL FACTS ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IS DEALING IN REAL ESTATE A ND HE HAS RECEIVED FUNDS FROM THE CUSTOMERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUYING LANDS FOR THEM. ON VERIFICATION OF THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS SUBMITT ED, IT IS NOTICED THAT ALL HAVE CONFIRMED THE PAYMENTS MADE TO ASSESSEE AN D IT CONTAINS THE DETAILS LIKE ADDRESS AND PAN DETAILS. FURTHER, EXCEPT MR. S. PULLA REDDY, ALL OTHER REMITTANCES ARE THROUGH BANK. LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN EXAMPLE OF S. PULLA REDDY AND EXPLAINED THE DISCRE PANCIES IN THIS TRANSACTION AND REJECTED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE W ITHOUT CONSIDERING THE MERITS IN THE OTHER CASES. IN ALL THE CASES, VI Z., MR. JAYASIMHA, M. SRINIVASA KUMAR, PRASAD BACHU, P. SREEDHAR REDDY AND RAJASEKHAR REDDY, ALL HAVE GIVEN THE DETAILS OF REM ITTANCE THROUGH BANK AND GAVE PAN DETAILS. THEY HAVE FULFILLED THE CONDITION STIPULATED IN SECTION 68. MOREOVER, IN THE CASE OF RAJASEKHAR REDDY, THE ASSESSEE HAS REFUNDED THE ADVANCE RECEIVED THRO UGH BANK. THE DETAILS ARE ALREADY IN THE CONFIRMATION LETTER. IT IS NOT PROPER TO REJECT THE CONFIRMATION WITHOUT PROPER INVESTIGATION. SINC E ALL THE CREDITORS HAVE ALREADY GIVEN CONFIRMATIONS AND ARE TRACEABLE, THESE ADVANCES 16 ITA NOS. 1222 TO 1226/HYD/2014 SURAM VENKATESHWARA REDDY ARE CONSIDERED AS GENUINE AND ACCORDINGLY ADDITION MADE ON THIS COUNT IS DELETED. WITH REGARD TO MR. JAYASIMHA, LD. CIT(A) HAS ALREADY EXPLAINED THE DETAILS FOR REJECTING THE GENUINENESS OF THIS TRANSACTION. HENCE, WE SUSTAIN THIS ADDITION. THEREFORE, THE ADD ITION MADE BY THE AO TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 52,46,050/- IS DELETED. V. GROUND REGARDING CHARGING OF INTEREST 10. A COMMON GROUND RELATING TO CHARGING OF INTER EST U/S 234A & 234B OF THE IT ACT HAS BEEN RAISED IN AYS 2002-03 T O 2005-06. CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER THESE SECTIONS IS CONSEQ UENTIAL IN NATURE, THEREFORE, THE AO IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. 11. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERAT ION ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH DECEMBER, 2017. SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (S. RIFAUR RAH MAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 29 TH DECEMBER, 2017 KV COPY TO:- 1) SURAM VENKATESWARA REDDY, C/O SRI S. RAMA RAO, ADVOCATE, FLAT NO. 102, SHRIYAS ELEGANCE, 3-6-643, STREE T NO. 9, HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD 500 029 2) DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, BASHEE RBAGH, HYD. 3) CIT(A) I, HYD. 4) CIT (CENTRAL), HYD. 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDE RABAD. 6) GUARD FILE